Facts are ideas that have been proven multiple times without fail and never been disproven (or they wouldn’t be a fact). Therefore facts are not subjective and instead are simply notions that cannot be disproven as of yet.

How can an idea not be subjective? Aren’t all ideas in the minds of one more knowers (i.e. subjects), and thus not independent of them as subjects? Isn’t all knowledge qua knowledge necessarily subjective?

I don’t see how the the reliability or replication of an idea has any bearing whatsoever on facts being (or not) subjective. Why should it?

Strictly speaking a “proof” is a process with a system of logic whereby one demonstrates that if certain assumptions are accepted or found to be true, then some conclusion necessarily, logically follows. Facts are never proven in this strict sense of the word. The tests for facts are empirically, a question of preponderance of evidence supporting or disconfirming. Sloppily and popularly this is often called “proof”, but it is really a very different thing.

Facts “continually ‘proved’ and… not ‘disproved'” means merely that people have judged the evidence available and find the fact supported by the evidence. That doesn’t mean that the fact is right/true in any objective sense. What it means is there is intersubjective agreement about its validity as a model. Still knowledge. Still existing in the minds of some set of knowers, without whom it would not exist. Still subjective.

He just chose his wording badly. Facts are natural principles with some unmistakeable, empirical reality that are given interpretation via ideas. Ergo you can have factual ideas and infactual ideas but you cannot have ideal facts.

Can you give an example of a fact that is “natural principle”, i.e. that isn’t subjective? I’ve had this discussions with hundreds of people and so far no one has ever yet been able to present an example of something known that isn’t known by some set of knowers and thus dependent on their cognition of it, nor of anything that they can demonstrate conclusively exists in the objective world exactly as people imagine it does. And generally it is pretty easy to show how knowledge is a model of what is, rather than what actually is, so I’m curious to see what you have to offer.

Uhhh no, opinions people agree on are still opinions, facts are ideas that you may not agree on, but are still true, for example if I’m looking at a black table, I would say that table is black, you may not agree with me, you may say it’s gray or purple, but in all reality it is black, that is a fact, opinions are based off of preferences, values, feelings, and judgments while facts are based off of logic and knowledge of things, another example would be me saying all people who are or were associated with IS IS are bad people, that is an opinion, although you or me may think that, a lot of others don’t believe so, so to say something is good or bad is an opinion, correct? And my little sentence I said before this”smoking crack in the US Is illegal” is a fact, not subjective, you may not agree with smoking crack being illegal or legal, but it’s still a fact that it is illegal in the US , thus my explanation earlier, facts are ideas that you may not agree on but are still true, subjective claims are based on your own personal preferences, values, feelings, and judgments thus dividing them from being able to be facts, even if every single being thought something was bad, it still would be an opinion because it’s based on either personal preferences, values, feelings, and judgments

“facts are ideas that you may not agree on, but are still true… facts are ideas that you may not agree on but are still true”How can anyone know if it is true if they don’t agree with it? For them it is, by definition, false. LOL.

“you may say it’s gray or purple, but in all reality it is black”Science shows us that color is subjective. An impression one’s mind has of what is, presumably an objective phenemonon, light. But we can never access light, only our impression/perception of it.

“‘smoking crack in the US Is illegal’ is a fact, not subjective”So if there weren’t any people who agreed with that statement, you hold it would still be true?

“…even if every single being thought something was bad, it still would be an opinion because it’s based on either personal preferences, values, feelings, and judgments.”Yes it would still be an opinion, but it would also be a fact, like gravity, because everyone would agree that it is the truth.

Evaluations of whether or not something is true are subjective. They cannot exist independent of some set of knowers. So anything that is predicated on whether or not something is true must also necessarily be subjective.

I don’t know if this is supposed to be a troll argument or not but, YES, SAYING something is a fact or an opinion is an opinion, so me SAYING “smoking crack in the US is illegal” is a fact is an opinion, but that doesn’t change “smoking crack in the US is illegal,” from a fact to a subjective claim,i.e opinions, and please read what I have to say this time, because s you’re comments are starting to sound scripted, and that’s where arguments usually hit there plateau.

What is there to read? What do you have to say? You merely assert — erroneously — that facts are not subjective. You say nothing else. You have no argument. Do you imagine that merely repeating “facts are not subjective” will change anything?

You are right that nothing changes a fact to a subjective claim, because (nearly) all facts ARE already subjective claims.

If facts were objective, then they wouldn’t need to be discovered, would they?

People talk about “debating the facts”, “getting their facts straight”, “contesting the facts”, “disputing (or agreeing on) the facts”. If facts were objective none of that would make any sense semantically. How do you explain those expressions?

If facts are objective they can never be wrong, right? Is there any knowledge that people have that has no possibility of being wrong? All scientific knowledge begins with the premise that future evidence might show it to be wrong, or at least flawed. So then by your argument nothing known to science is a fact, because nothing known to science is objective.

If facts are objective, then mustn’t it be true that no facts can ever be known? Because how can a human mind know anything that is, by definition, independent of itself?

Consider anything that you or we recognize as a physical object. We presume that there is something there that has objective existence and that constrains our perception of it. But we have no way of knowing the objective reality, or even knowing for certain that there is any physical reality there. If we were in some kind of sensory ‘fun house’ or hooked into a computer that simulated reality for us (ala The Matrix) we would still have the impression of a physical reality, just as we sometimes have when we are dreaming. But then we awake to discover it was all ‘illusion’. We have only our subjective, cognitive model(s) of the physical reality. And all facts, all knowledge, is subjective, at best a perception of a presumed objective reality, not the objective reality itself. <p>Moreover, the models we do have make it pretty clear that whatever the objective reality may be, it certainly isn’t what our models are. There is no ‘chair’ or ‘leather’, except in our minds. Those concepts are parts of our model, not elements of an objective reality.

1.No you clearly said early, and I have screenshots that my statement was “a fact thus also making it an opinion” don’t try to go back on that

2.And that’s the point of a fact, it doesn’t have to be known by all to be true,for example, if I lived in Uruguay and smoked crack everyday and just loved it, that doesn’t change “smoking crack in the US is illegal” From objective to subjective, if I had 11 toes but no one knew about it but me it doesn’t mean I don’t have 11 toes

3.I think you’re getting the words subjective and intersubjective mixed up, Now if you were to say all facts are intersubjective, I would agree with you, but that’s not the case, you’re saying all facts are subjective, subjective has to do with feelings and you can look on any single page about the word subjective and I promise you the meaning won’t change, same goes with objective, you’re making up definition for these words now, I’ don’t know where you got them from

4.A theory is A “testable statement”, a hypothesis is an answer to something too, that’s ridiculous to say that it’s not,and there is no confusing these two things because they practically are the same, I could make a theory and call it a hypothesis right now, and vise versa. The theory of evolution is a hypothesis of how things evolved, correct?

5.I can prove with evidence that smoking crack in the US is illegal,that’s proven already, it’s true it doesn’t make any sense that it’s not.You don’t need to tell me that theories aren’t proven because I know that, they’re opinions, I’ve already said that.

6.And once again you are getting the words intersubjective and subjective mixed up, nothing else to say about that.

7.If you wanted to debate on whether facts are “objective or subjective” you should of set your title as “Are facts subjective or objective? ” But instead you went with ” All facts are subjective” So that’s on you.

The claim “All facts are subjective” is nonsense because it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can’t be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can’t be subjective because then it would not rule out any objective claim, including the claim that it is objectively false.

Wait… if i place one stick beside another, there are two sticks. Yes, numbers are a creation of our own, but the sticks present are still what they are. Unless you dabble in that whole “how do we know we even exist and what if only I exist and you’re all just a figment of this reality created just for me” thing, it’s safe to say, there is a stick and another stick.